Averting Mike’s Last Mickey

Michael Vecchione, head of the Brooklyn DA’s Rackets Division is in his last two weeks before his resignation goes into effect on December 12th. His shenanigans are legendary and include his continued efforts to keep the discredited Samuel Kellner case alive even at the price of removing two veteran prosecutors from the case because they insisted on dismissing it. Mike for all his macho posturing, wasn’t man enough to show up in court himself. Instead he first sent in John Holmes to request a postponement with no facts or arguments to justify it. Then he sent in Monique Ferrell who failed to turn over materials that the judge ordered turned over at the previous session. With a different judge, Ferrell would be sitting in a cell for contempt of the court.

While we all look forward to his departure, there is reason to worry about his handling of evidence. Of late, for reasons only fully known to him (until New York and federal prosecutors catch up) he has been working overtime to subvert justice in the Lebovits case in many ways including his continuation of the Kellner case. At various times he took possession of a lot of evidence in the Lebovits case. I doubt he has returned most of it. If he destroys, or “loses” evidence it would be a prosecutable crime. But proving it depends on the quality of monitoring and documentation. I beg, urge, and beseech the grown ups in the Brooklyn DA to exercise their powers to secure relevant materials and document all missing materials ASAP. If materials should go missing, unless they can pin it on Vecchione or document his control of the evidence, those who are negligent, should be held to account.

The public should not have to accept a facile claim that he slipped a mickey into the system, and nobody remembers what happened. Feigned forgetfulness may yet get Mike convicted of perjury. Anyone colluding with his shenanigans should have to pay the price.

Related

20 thoughts on “Averting Mike’s Last Mickey”

i mean..this is literally 100% pure speculation. You are just making this stuff up. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? “i doubt he has returned most of it” but how do you support that statement? When you stray into nonsensical rantings like this, you lose all credibility.

I really don’t recall any predictions that have been countered. If you’re referring to the Lebovitz case, as someone else recently did, my prediction there still hasn’t been addressed (i.e. what will happen if the victim wants a plea). To what are you referring? I don’t even think I’ve made other predictions – only analyses.

You repeatedly insisted Joe was in good shape for reelection in the past.

Your wrote in August: “do you really believe that Hynes would penalize a person like Burke, who has an obviously storied history as a whistleblower and general do-gooder, for acting ethically in the face of KCDA misconduct?” She was fired the day after the election and the Frances Robles reported in the New York Times she was a whistleblower over the KCDA response to the Collins suit.

On 10/14 you wrote: “the unfortunate truth is that he [Clarence Norman] was very involved with Thompson.” Even the NY Post backed off the story. The Wall St Journal reported that Hynes could not provide any proof of his claim. All we are left with is that Norman, who had his own reasons to hate Hynes chose to attend a Thompson primary-night victory party.

On 9/13 you wrote: “Nick Batsidis is an honorable and devoted prosecutor who follows the evidence. He indicted that case [Kellner] because that’s what the evidence demanded.” However, I do not see you rise to say, that when Batsidis & Alexis insisted it be dismissed that Hynes should have listened. Mark my words, we will eventually learn that Hynes for some time has known that the Kellner case should be dropped.

I’m glad that you were able to find my prior posts. None of them are even close to inaccurate or “proven wrong.”

First, I NEVER said Joe was in good shape for re-election. To the contrary, since the primary I’ve consistently spoken in terms of what Thompson will or should do. Go ahead and review my posts if you like.

Second, I am not wrong about Burke. Everyone now knows that she was fired because she allegedly hacked the email purportedly sent by Judge Wachtler, wherein she tried (and, at the time, basically succeeded) to make it look like he called Thompson a “Schwartze.” (and, thus, making Hynes look like a racist). All This has now been reported. I stand by my statement that Hynes would never penalize her or anyone else for trying to do “something ethical.” There is absolutely no proof of this. If I recall correctly, at the time, you and I agreed that time would tell whether you or I am right about this. We’re still waiting. We shall see.

Third, while I never thought it was a good campaign strategy to focus on it so strongly, there really is no doubt that Norman was involved with Thompson. At least 4 people saw Thompson on different occasions working with the campaign. Now you may dispute the accuracy or credibility of these people’s reports, but they’re no more or less credible or verifiable than the “evidence” you cite to the contrary. Again, this isn’t a “prediction” that I got wrong, nor have there been any “surprises” lately that somehow prove me wrong. Your words have meaning, YL. Stick to that meaning when you debate.

Finally, my remarks about Batsidis were not only accurate, they have since been proven to be absolutely correct. How does my recent failure to type in the words, “Hynes should have listened,” make my prior statement inaccurate or proven wrong by recent “surprises?” Of course they don’t. Once again, mind your words, YL. What I have said recently is that I’m not sure whether Kellner is actually innocent, or whether the evidence in that case is just insufficient as an evidentiary matter. If it’s the latter, then an argument can be made that he’s a criminal and that the case shouldn’t be abandoned just because it’s tough to prove (same argument in favor of trying tough sex crimes cases, by the way, even though they may be lost. If you believe the defendant is guilty, you do your best within the bounds of the law). You have stated that you believe Kellner to be actually innocent. Fine. I haven’t stated otherwise. I’ve been honest that I don’t know the answer.

I’m sure that all this will now be twisted, but the reality is that your initial claim (“a succession of surprises …have countered (my) predictions”) is completely untrue.

1. You write, “I NEVER said Joe was in good shape for re-election. To the contrary, since the primary…” Duh! The whole world knew he was a goner once he lost the primary. Brooklyn county-wide elections are almost always determined by the primary.

2. You write: “Everyone now knows that she was fired because she allegedly hacked the email purportedly sent by Judge Wachtler, wherein she tried (and, at the time, basically succeeded) to make it look like he called Thompson a “Schwartze.””

That was a deft use of allegedly. Not everyone knows that. We all know that Hynes made an allegation to justify his firing (conveniently the day after the election.” The alternative narrative is that she was fired for being a whistleblower and if she did indeed leak the email in question, she was in lawful possession of it through a route other than her work (e.g., it was shared with her by someone else who had it lawfully via non-work email accounts on both sides.) & indeed, two reporters at the New York Times have offered the view that Barbara Burke indeed blew the whistle on ethical misconduct at KCDA.

3. You write: “At least 4 people saw Thompson on different occasions working with the campaign.” I assume you meant to write Norman. However, anyone can work for a campaign. I can walk into the Rick Perry for President in 2016 and pick up flyers etc. That does not mean Thompson sought or assigned Norman any role. That has never been confirmed with a single tangible piece of evidence according to the Wall St. Journal and even the Hynes campaign conceded that point to them.

4. Re. Kellner, as with other points, the weight of developments is turning against you. Suit yourself in your last-ditch argumentativeness.

To paraphrase one of the great founders of the sock puppet profession, this is the spin that doesn’t end, yes he spins on and on my friends, Truther started spinning it to cover Hynes’s butt, and now he keeps on spinning it like some poor pathetic nut…..

I don’t mind being your punching bag. An opposing voice can never expect to be liked in a forum like this. Still, your responses, and mine, demonstrate who is using facts and who is spewing misguided theory. I’ll rest on what I’ve said many times: time will tell. For example, time will tell if Burke was fired for whistleblowing – if she was, then, eventually, that truth will come out, as will the truth about her hacking. I’m willing to wait. And how are the “weight of developments turning against” me on Kellner? I haven’t staked out any position on that. You seem to love saying that I have, so knock yourself out.

Nobody has to be anybody’s punching bag! The DA was a good DA but it was time for him to go. My beef with Lopin is that he has to dress the DA up as something bad. He wasn’t bad, he was just old and had surrounded himself with people who did not tell him the truth. But there is nothing bad about this. Thompson is a good man, it’s just time to turn the page is all. There doesn’t have to be a bad guy.

Post navigation

Get notified about every new post by email

Follow or Contact Yerachmiel Lopin

Twitter: @frumfollies
FaceBook: facebook.com/yerachmiel.lopin
Get regular notifications of new posts by going to the box above this and entering your email address. Your address will not be disclosed to others or shared with anyone else.
If you are not on Twitter or FaceBook, and you want to contact me, leave a message in the comments field of any of my posts with the words "contact me." It will not be visible to any other users. Be sure to include an accurate email in the indicated field.